- This topic has 3 voices and 2 replies.
-
Posts
-
Oliver Stone will release a new series on Showtime:Oliver Stone's 'Secret History' to put Hitler 'in context'Here's a quote:
We can't judge people as only 'bad' or 'good.' Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and its been used cheaply. He's the product of a series of actions. It's cause and effect ... People in America don't know the connection between WWI and WWII ... I've been able to walk in Stalin's shoes and Hitler's shoes to understand their point of view. We're going to educate our minds and liberalize them and broaden them.
Whether you like or can't stand Oliver Stone's politics, what do you think of this? On one hand, I don't know how much I would trust what he has to say. On the other hand, I do think that society puts certain historical figures into "types" by which they're automatically vilified, making any exploration into their lives or thought nearly impossible (without having mud flung at you).
Moral relativism, about what you would expect coming from Oliver Stone. Hitler has been vilified as evil because that is what he was. I would be willing to bet real money he will not say anything about Hitler historians have not already said. He may have a point about about the Average American not knowing the level of connectedness between the world wars, but a politically charged documentary is not the way to enlighten the ignorant. He would be better off advocating for schools to actually teach history and take the politics out of education.This quote is rich-
"You cannot approach history unless you have empathy for the person you may hate,"
Why do I need to empathize with a despicable character to understand them? This series promises to be nothing but post-modernist, propaganda, and therefor probably garbage. His intended audience will love it, but the sad part is that people that want to learn will probably get dumbed down by watching it. What is the purpose of trying to rehabilitate a monster through moral relativist "understanding"?
Why do I need to empathize with a despicable character to understand them?
Are you confusing empathy with sympathy? If anything, I'm afraid Stone will likely show sympathy to Hitler. I define empathy as knowing what is/was in someone's mind and what where their motivations behind their actions adn how did they go about carrying them out (which is something I think historians should do), but sympathy is along the lines of "well, Hitler had a bad childhood" or some other crap like that.
Here is the Webster definition of Empathy
Main Entry: em?pa?thy Pronunciation: ˈem-pə-thēFunction: noun Etymology: Greek empatheia, literally, passion, from empathēs emotional, from em- + pathos feelings, emotion ? more at pathosDate: 18501 : the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it2 : the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this
I have always understood empathy as being the ability to put yourself in someone's shoes and share their thoughts to understand them better. Empathy leads to sympathy, that is Stone's object I would guess. He probably wants us to somehow feel sorry for the poor maligned character of a misubderstood Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. I am curious to find out how he empathizes with modern Islamic terrorists arent they also misunderstood? I have no desire to share the murderous thoughts of some of the foulest figures in History. I do have sympathy for their victims though.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
